Lol. Anybody why he permanently uses French expressions during his text? It's his way to belittle Airbus ("the dumb Frogs") and even ignoring the fact that Airbus is not French. But no spin, no bias. God bless the 777.

"Of course without bothering to look at how it finally turned out; What would have been the fun in that...?"

And how has it "finally turned out"? Did I miss something, did Airbus and Boeing suddenly declare the game over? The one thing about this business is that there is no beginning, nor end. It's a continuous battle.

Seriously, though, Boeing has had a hell of a time selling those A340-300s. In fact, two of the carriers that agreed to buy them have collapsed - Khalifa and Air Switzerland. However, the A340's value is also sh**-poor at the moment, and the fact that these nearly new A340-300s are available have not only contributed to the quad's lackluster value, but forced Airbus to sell new A343s at minimum prices. So it seems, both Boeing and Airbus are being f***ed over by the A340.

As somebody mentioned, the article is rather stale as it was written in 1999. I wouldn't call the article "brilliant" as it is no more than PlaneBusiness Banter. I think Airbus decided to support Boeing A340s after all, correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Anyway, with 10 unsold A340s, I wonder who has the last laugh.

The difference between you and me is I am open minded, while you are rigid minded.

You've developped this ideology that twins are better than quads because the 777 is cool and has 2 enormous engines. The 777 is great, I'm not denying that. But I don't like how you've become so critical of quads when they have dominated the large aircraft industry over the years and will CONTINUE to dominate the large aircraft industry over the years to come because of their many advantages such as better wing efficiency factor, and better high altitude performance and higher velocity performance.

Remember, the 777 was built as a twin because airlines were looking for a large widebody aircraft with lower operating costs.

There's no denying that twins are more economical and more efficient than quads, but remember, we're not talking about performance. We're talking about aeronautics and actual aircraft performances and quads are still better in this manner for many reasons. That is why Airbus opted 4-engines on the A340. Operating costs was less of an issue for them.

Sadly nowadays airlines are trying to minimize costs because of the general shape of the industry and the reform it's currently going through (low fares). So that's to Boeings advantage, but that's now why I brought up this discussion.

The A340 is a good aircraft, and the A340-500/600 will be a huge improvement and will greatly solve the A340's main problems.

Now, you're going to ramble on and on about what I'm going to say Concordeboy, but you simply cannot deny that in a dangerous moment, quads are safer than twins. You simply can't deny that. Yes, it's old ideology that 4 is safer than 2, but it's a realistic ideology. If you lose 1 engine on a twin-engined aircraft, you've got only 1 left. If you lose 1 on a quad, you've got 3 left.

On most twins, if 1 engine fails, it usually means disaster. Now I know that the 777 can stay up in the air with 1 engine which is great, but still, you've only got 1 engine left.

Now I am by no means saying twins are unsafe. I fly on twins much more than quads and have no problem with flying on them. If I'm going to die in a plane crash, I'll accept my fate. No use living a life in paranoia.

Anyways, the point is quads are obviously safer than twins in the case of an engine failure and you simply can't deny it. It's old ideology and may sound silly with today's reliable engines, but it's an ideology that will continue to be valid.

"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran

We're talking about during take-offs such as a bird strike. Not cruising.

Hell, an aircraft can lose all it's engines while in flight and still be okay.

Engine failures during take-offs are the most dangerous.

Most twins do not have a high enough thrust to weight ratio to be able to stabilize if they lose one of there engines during take-off. The 777 can simply because it's engines are enormous. Infact with a long enough runway, the 777 can take-off with 1 engine. But that's not the case with other twins such as the 767. Even narrowbodies such as 737s and A320s if they lose one engine during take-off, they'll stall so quickly because of there angle attack being too high and low velocity which causes the boundary layer above the wing to detach and causes the aircraft to basically drop like a rock.

We're talking about if an aircraft has already rotated and it takes the bird strike.

Regards

"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran

you are rigid minded. You've developped this ideology that twins are better than quads because the 777 is cool and has 2 enormous engines.

Awfully presumptuous of you, considering that there's absolutely no way you can corroborate this in the least

quads when they have dominated the large aircraft industry over the years and will CONTINUE to dominate the large aircraft industry over the years to come

This is cute. Sure the DC8s, 707s, Concordes, Comets, etc gave quads a decent boost.... but you're saying that the failing 747 line, the A340 line (which trails its primary competitor in a 2:1 ratio), and the niche A380 line; are absolutely/undeniably sure to dominate the bustling 777 & A330 lines, whom the 767, 757, A300, and A310s have likewise given a decent start? And then there's the upcoming 7E7. Might want to check your crystal ball again before placing any money on your anecdotal theory (and nothing more)

and better high altitude performance

Really. So tell me, is that why the A340NGs' inboard engines had to be angled downward for cruise?

but you simply cannot deny that in a dangerous moment, quads are safer than twins. You simply can't deny that

I not only can refute it as a pure falsehood; but do refute it as such, can corroborate that refutal, and base my purchasing habits on that refutal. Next!

On most twins, if 1 engine fails, it usually means disaster.

Source? I cant think of one "disaster" that resulted from an engine out during ETOPS operation.

But that's not the case with other twins such as the 767

This statement is utter drivel! The reason the 767 ushered in the age of ETOPS180+ was because it was the only aircraft of its time which could be certified to generate an airspeed of 425kt at any point in flight with less than 51% power! Learn you facts

Even narrowbodies such as 737s and A320s if they lose one engine during take-off, they'll stall so quickly because of there angle attack being too high and low velocity which causes the boundary layer above the wing to detach and causes the aircraft to basically drop like a rock.

Again, you're completely wrong. The 737NG and A32x family are well known for their ability to maintain stable climb at 50% power, at MTOW from even hot/high fields. You live in DEN... SLC is an even better example: why do you think you see more of these family of aircraft(along with MD90 and 757) than you do 737classic/MD80

You had valid arguements early on... but these last two statements just put a HUGE damper in your credibility. Wow.

This is cute. Sure the DC8s, 707s, Concordes, Comets, etc gave quads a decent boost.... but you're saying that the failing 747 line, the A340 line (which trails its primary competitor in a 2:1 ratio), and the niche A380 line; are absolutely/undeniably sure to dominate the bustling 777 & A330 lines, whom the 767, 757, A300, and A310s have likewise given a decent start? And then there's the upcoming 7E7. Might want to check your crystal ball again before placing any money on your anecdotal theory (and nothing more)

757, 767, A300, A310, 707s, DC-8s, etc. are not exactly the size I was talking about. I'm talking about aircraft like the 777 and larger. You've only mentioned passenger airliners. Is that all that counts in your book?

Really. So tell me, is that why the A340NGs' inboard engines had to be angled downward for cruise?

We're talking about in general. Quads in general have better high altitude performance than twins.

I not only can refute it as a pure falsehood; but do refute it as such, can corroborate that refutal, and base my purchasing habits on that refutal. Next!

That's what makes you narrowminded and arrogant.

Source? I cant think of one "disaster" that resulted from an engine out during ETOPS operation.

That's because there hasn't been an accident yet, has there? You don't read what I said carefully. I said in the case of an engine failure being in a quad would be safer than being in a twin. Still gonna deny that?

This statement is utter drivel! The reason the 767 ushered in the age of ETOPS180+ was because it was the only aircraft of its time which could be certified to generate an airspeed of 425kt at any point in flight with less than 51% power! Learn you facts

Uhhh...this really shows you don't understand lift and drag concepts. That's 51% power at an airspeed of 425kt. during high altitude cruise. Note what I said, I was talking about rotation in which the conditions are ENTIRELY different. You have a high angle of attack, different wing efficiency factor, different, and lower velocity.

Again, you're completely wrong. The 737NG and A32x family are well known for their ability to maintain stable climb at 50% power, at MTOW from even hot/high fields. You live in DEN... SLC is an even better example: why do you think you see more of these family of aircraft(along with MD90 and 757) than you do 737classic/MD80

stable climb is not the same as rotation. We're talking about a few seconds after lift off in which the angle of attack is 30 degrees which is very close to a 737/A320's typical stall speed. If you lose an engine at that moment, guess what? You fall like a rock.

Shortly after rotation, aircraft will level out or else they will stall if they maintain that 30 degree angle of attack.

You had valid arguements early on... but these last two statements just put a HUGE damper in your credibility. Wow.

I find that statement amusing, as you are the one who skipped my key points which makes you sound like a fool. Oh well. I thought you were better then that.

I've got tests tommorow, good night.

"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran

757, 767, A300, A310, 707s, DC-8s, etc. are not exactly the size I was talking about

Way to specify then!

We're talking about in general.

I'm not... I want you to cite some specific examples and corroborate them. Show me where "general" quad widebodies achieve a better high-altitude performance... and by what margins. I await your information.

That's what makes you narrowminded and arrogant.

Maybe so... but it also makes me well justified

That's 51% power at an airspeed of 425kt. during high altitude cruise. Note what I said, I was talking about rotation in which the conditions are ENTIRELY different. You have a high angle of attack, different wing efficiency factor, different, and lower velocity

And that's where you're wrong again... the aircraft must be able to achieve that speed from V1 if necessary (though it rarely, if ever, is) in order for certification to operate in such a manner. Try again.

We're talking about a few seconds after lift off in which the angle of attack is 30 degrees which is very close to a 737/A320's typical stall speed

And are you truly naive enough to believe that these aircraft arent tested for certification to deal with that exact same scenario? With all the 737/A32x flights taking place worldwide... dont you think we'd be seeing such crashes quite a bit, were the aircraft not capable of dealing with them? Heck, I myself have been on both a 737 and MD80 which lost power immediately after takeoff.... most of the pax never knew it ('cept on the MadDog... but anyways).

Saying that quads "dominated the large aircraft industry" for many years because they are more reliable or provide better performance is simply hogwash. The simple FACT is that when the 707 and DC-8 and Comet were designed, the available turbojets simply didn't provide much thrust. The JT-3's on the original 707 prototype provided a whopping 10,000 lbs of thrust each; to get that size of an airliner to fly, they had to stick four of 'em on the wings. The 727 had three engines because when the model was designed in the early 1960's, it needed those three engines based on what the engine manufacturers could deliver. And when the 747-100 was designed, the only way to get an aircraft of that size into the air (with acceptable safety margins) was with four of the most powerful engines available.

"Sadly nowadays airlines are trying to minimize costs..." Huh? Can I have some of what you're smoking? Well-run airlines ALWAYS try to minimize costs where there is little or no negative impact on the quality of their product. It is simply mismanagement to choose an alternative with higher total cost of ownership when it provides no improvement in other ways.

"There's no denying that twins are more economical and more efficient than quads, but remember, we're not talking about performance. We're talking about aeronautics and actual aircraft performances and quads are still better in this manner for many reasons. That is why Airbus opted 4-engines on the A340. Operating costs was less of an issue for them."

Wait, explain to me how the A340 "outperforms" the 777? The A340-200 and -300 are slower (is that "higher performance?") and do not climb as quickly. And since when are operating costs not an issue for ANY airline?

Why do you think the DC-10 and L1011 were designed with three engines instead of four? Perhaps it's because three engines provided a more cost-effective solution for their customers than four (and twins weren't feasible at the time)? Do you think that the resounding market success of widebody twins since 1980 might say something about their suitability? Recall that Boeing had considered designing the 777 as a trijet, but feedback from its customers led them to choose a twin (which also meant the engine manufacturers really had to push their designs as well). The A380 *could* have been designed as a trijet, but (1) Airbus had never designed one and (2) operators aren't too keen on the complications introduced by a tail-mounted engine.

And if you think that twins can't make it safely into the air (and return to the airfield) after V1 with one engine out, you really need to review the FAA/JAA certification requirements. Don't you imagine that you'd hear about far more crashes if that were indeed the case?

With in-flight engine shutdown rates on modern twins on the order of once every 100,000 hours of operation, the chances of both engines failing before the airliner can divert on any given flight are (roughly) in the range of one in one billion.